Hi All,
Need an important info. Does Norton 16 h and BSA M20 have the same Amal carburetor? Please do show some light on this.
🍻 Cheers All
Muthu
email (option): a.muthukumr@gmail.com
They both have a 276 but M20 is a flange mount, 16H is a spigot mount. Which bike are you looking for. I/we can give you the full spec if you need it. Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
Hi Ron,
Thanks for the info shared. Am looking to buy Amal carburetor for my Norton 16 h and BSA M 20.Thats why I needed your help and suggestions.
🍻Cheers All
Muthu
email (option): a.muthukumr@gmail.com
The number for the 16H is 276AE/1BE....The M20 is 276C/1B. But any 1" 276 with the correct body type can be configured to suit with the correct slide/jets etc. Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
Good luck finding a 1065 needle jet for the Norton. It's a Norton only size. To compensate one has to go bottom clip on a 106 needle and up the main jet one or [ in my case] two sizes. That's with the correct three mesh filter, which the photo above doesn't show.
I'm not sure that the three mesh flame trap was a standard fitment. At least not the early bikes? Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
I thought that might elicit a response... Mine came to me as rebuilt two weeks before the end of war at a Field Station and tarred with demob black [over a surprisingly bright green], a period Enfield headlamp, a lorry ammeter and a three mesh filter. It was missing a sump plate and Field stand. It wouldn't have taken long to add the filter.It would at least deter mud, grit and small children. Che Guevara managed to wear his motor out in South America.
email (option): jeremy@clogmaker.co.uk
There is no mention of a flame trap on any of the wartime WD Norton Amal specification cards and they are all annotated "Std. Needle Jet" - "Yes"
There's no mention of ""WD"Spare crankcases either but I've got a so marked unused set. Obvious when one knows that early bikes didn't have a sump guard. I too couldn't find any mention of the wartime size of needle jet. However a 106 does not work with the standard main jet so it's reasonable to suppose that the size was the same as just before the war. Norton used the 1065 on a variety of engines. No other manufacturer used that half size. Burlen suggested I contact Surrey motorcyles, who had never heard of the size...
email (option): jeremy@clogmaker.co.uk
Strange that Burlen directed you to Surrey Cycles? Since Burlen supply them with Amal parts. (Likewise Hitchcocks)
Burlen seem to hold most of the Amal specification cards and will usually send you a copy of the card that you're interested in if you ask them. So far on request they've sent me the cards for Matchless G3WO and Velo MDD. Both answered some queries I had.
I've no idea about pre war Norton's but the 1939 and the 1940-54 Amal "settings and parts lists" both quote the standard 106 needle jet for the WD 16H. Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
There was no "correct three mesh filter" on any WD16H leaving the factory between 1935 and 1945.
Its always remarkable to see people appearing to make a generic statement when looking at a post manufacture anomaly.
It will certainly have happenend that some individual fitter added a flame trap to a Norton machine, just as there were individual modifications of a WD16H with Matchless G3L front fork!
This is however no proof that this was a standard Norton thing and should also not been suggested as such.
For the same reason you will not find any reference to settings with a flame trap in any Norton document, they were just never added by them, as also proven in the many hundreds of pictures collected over the years.
No clue why the statement "There's no mention of "WD"Spare crankcases either" is made. From contract C3655 (mid 1939) onwards all 20+ WD16H spare parts lists I have give spare crankcases with pn 3954?
Added to that, the unused stocks of wartime crankcases will have come to the market in some way after the war in so far they were not melted to become something else.
Cheers,
Rob
email (option): wd16h@telfort.nl
I stand corrected on the flame trap. Profound apologies. As for the needle jet. I obtained this information both from the specific 16H website and civilian documents. My bike needed it's carb cleaning, as the bike had been sitting unused with a split fuel tank. Unfortunately on reassembly the needle alignment was different and it had slotted so did not work anymore. Burlen were out of stock. I tried a 106 which spat back. I went to the extreme end of adjustment and it improved but still was off. I then found it was also running very weak at full throttle so had to go up two sizes to a 190 main to get it to run well. It's now a touch leaner than before and needs a good flood to start cold or even lukewarm. Prior to all this I also had to change the float to plastic as at idle and low throttle settings the engine was running very rich due to the metal float not putting sufficient pressure on the [worn] seat.
With so little power, especially noticeable as I am running an engine sprocket with 19 teeth, it's relatively easy to discern the differences the jets make. The engine goes from indifferent to eager with very small adjustments. I didn't expect it to pull a 19 but up hill and down dale it's happy to, assisted by third being very close to fourth. The change transforms the engine and makes main roads, in admittedly bucolic west Herefordshire, a pleasure.
I was surprised that altering the needle jet affected full throttle. The books tell you that this is not the case, and indeed it isn't with monoblocs both concentrics and the many different Mikunis that I have experience with. However talking with an ex IOM racer who had raced Norton singles back in the day about all this he opined that premonoblocs were indeed different in their tuning and were "tricky".
As for crankcases. I last asked this question some years ago and was told there were no such spares in the lists. But knowledge moves on..
No need for apologies on flame trap. I can imagine the confusion. Civilian Norton machines were indeed provided with them for 1938 and 1939.
I can imagine very well that present carb settings are different from the ones specified in late thirties.
Petrol composition has dramatically changed since then.
The best setting solution can only be found by itteration I think.
As for spare crankcases, my remarks are limited to WD Nortons, I don't know much about the other brands!
Cheers,
Rob
email (option): wd16h@telfort.nl
Jeremy perhaps it's wear to your carb body and slide that is affecting the running. A worn body/slide will allow more air to pass and might necessitate in experimenting with different jets. Maybe acquire another body or get yours re-sleeved. All the other parts are available from Hitchcocks or Surrey Cycles. Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
Since the war the bike has had very limited use. It was brought up by train from Pride and Clarke [I worked there] in the early 50s as a demob bike. Pride and Clark amongst others are reputed to have often bought war surplus by the weight. A quarryman bought it for sidecar use [It had a 16 sprocket when I got it] He had two road bikes as well. Upon his death it went to a farmer who kept it in a dry garage. The last tax disc is '64. The slide doesn't rattle and it idles well. The front forks haven't sacked, even with sidecar use.
I stand by my findings on jetting. As I've stated 1065 was the default needle jet for Nortons. I checked in publications of the time. Whilst a worn slide can cause low speed running problems, by the time it's fully open it's not going to have much of an effect. The carb was disassembled and ultrasounded, not cleaned with bits of wire.... Anyway that's all pretty irrelevant since the bike was carburating acceptably well till I had to change the needle jet. I changed the float years ago.
I wonder if modern 276 Norton carbs haven't had changes made to the block to get them to run with a 106, but then my knowledge of how blocks effect jetting is pretty non existent. I don't know if different lettered 276 carbs have different blocks or if the blocks are all the same.
"1065 needle jets now available" from the new Amal catalogue. I bought one at the show. I now face the conundrum of returning a well functioning carb to stock. That might be too much even for the obsessive bean counters here. Nice to have it but I probably won't fit it. We are really lucky to have Burlen carve out a business remaking old carbs. Pretty inspired on their part.
Amal's practice of simply stating "Standard" in terms of needle jet is obscuring thigs here. Do we actually know what "Standard" was, and was it the same across all bore sizes and instruments, for all years ? Did the Type 76 have a different "Std" from the 276...or perhaps only for the non-Norton 276R ?
I suspect that 106.5 may have been the pre-war standard size...This 1936 listing assumes standard unless otherwise stated and I can see 105.5, 107, 107.5 and for the Ariel Square 4, Some BSAs and Royal Enfields (admittedly with a Type 74), the 106 listed. The only size within a reasonable range that isn't listed is the 106.5 - Might this then be the "standard" ?
https://partsbooks.britishonly.com/partsbooks/PDF_Files/more/amal/settings/1936/1936-1939combined.pdf
Like you Rik, I always though that 106 is "standard" and that is what Martyn Bratby told me also. Often they are not even stamped, which means they are the standard jets. I'll send this thread to John Parker. I'm sure he'll comment. Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
Ron, I can't even recall what I have in the 16H at the moment !
I do have a late-war stainless needle jet here though, with the "AMAL" stamped and the "1065" hand-engraved.
Gents
For what it is worth, this is what I added the wdnorton.nl website after an email conversation with them.
The Burlen Ltd company, (present official AMAL manufacturer, see links page) stated that the "standard" part was actually the 1065. These were not marked. For reason of optimisation, there are alternative needle jets available numbered, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109. The number signifies the internal diameter in 1/1000th of an inch.
Strangely enough they did not mention 1055 or 1075 mentioned by Rik!
cheers
Rob
email (option): wd16h@telfort.nl
I just got this reply from John Parker (UK Carbs Australia):-
Hi Ron after reconditioning Amals and now just selling the parts since 1990 I have never seen a 1065 needle jet for pre monobloc carbs or been asked for one. As 106 is the thousands of an inch measurement I cannot see the use of a 1065. A 107 can make a difference alright but ½ a thou. I went through my Amal literature from 1930 to 1954 and no carbs are listed as having a 1065 including Nortons. I see that Burlen has them listed but they are dearer than a 106 because I assume a small amount are manufactured. I cannot see that you would have to make drastic alterations to the needle position either. The needle jets were nearly always a 106 and that was standard and so they only marked the 107 and 108 and 109.
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
Gents,
The problem in this discussion is to find what AMAL definition of "standard" was.
If everybody asks for the "standard" you get something, not knowing what it is.
I can imagine nobody asked Mr Parker for a specific 1065 because this number is not given anywhere so why should you ask for it!
List No. 601/2 (issue no. 2) of August 1962 giving the "Carburetter settings and spare parts list 1940 to 1954 (inclusive)" also refers to "standard" without giving it a number.
This list also shows the .106 as option (for other make MC's than Norton), clearly an indication that "standard" was not a 106!
I am therefore still inclined to believe what Burlen told me, 1065 = "standard"
This particular list does not show the half numbers Rik mentioned!
And yes, the difference is quite small.
Cheers,
Rob
email (option): wd16h@telfort.nl
Yes well I tested and couldn't get a 106 to work with a 170. If I had been running a 17 sprocket I may not have noticed, the engine would perhaps have pulled through the slight weakness.
I have tuned slide carbs in the past. For instance I went down a full size needle jet on an old KLX and got rid of the hesitation that was reported by journos back in the day. I doubt optimum jetting in Oz would be exactly the same as here due to the much less dense air. I've had to alter a race carb on a bike coming out of Nevada to get it to run right [made it richer on the idle jet which adds all the way through the throttle openings, despite what the books say, logical really..] Another I got from Pittsburgh was perfect, much denser air there. The 1075 was listed as the needle jet for certain Norton Inters [Pitmans].
Rob got his data from the horses mouth but if folks have a fixed idea it takes a bit to shift it: and was Standard for Norton the same as Standard for BSA? As I've stated before it appears Norton were the only manufacturer who favoured the 1065 across a range of engines.
I've run all my tests with the 3 mesh screen. I doubt if that makes a difference but....
I was told by many old time mechanics over the years that standard needle jets were 106. I am surprised that they are 106.5.but may be they are. No Norton listing from 1930 on that I have mentions .5 except for some Internationals but they had TT15 carburetters so not standard pre monobloc. I am sure in the past that I have seen needle jets listed as standard 106 but will have to delve deeper to prove this point.INTERESTING I just checked Burlen website for BSA M20 ex W.D and guess what the needle jet shows as 106. I am afraid that like most companies if you speak to two different people you will get two different answers.
Jeremy,
I am not English so am a bit uncertain about the meaning of "Rob got his data from the horses mouth" which I interpret as "from people telling me".
I can assure you that I rarely do that and if so I then make a statement that I did.
I therefore amended my previous remark giving exactly where I found it.
If official AMAL info is incorrect then I have no clue.
Regarding the filters mentioned in previous answers, the original hand written AMAL document dated 3/8/1939 for pre-war civilian Nortons clearly state a "2 gauze intake with both gauzes coarse mesh - body 30/109". Also refers to needle "std" and main jet 160 spare 150, valve 6/5 and needle position 3.
"AMAL Hints and Tips for ... 1939", LIST 294B state "AIR FILTERS. These may affect the jet setting, so if one is fitted afterwards to the carburetter the main jet may have to be smaller"
None of this is hearsay, just copying what has been written by official documents of the time.
John,
I agree that you may get different answers from the people within the same company. Used to be a trap in my previous work as aeronautical engineer for 38 years where I learned not to "lean" on spoken words and always requested unquestionable proof of a statement. Was not always liked because of that but Airworthiness depends on it.
There still is the documented listing showing "std" and "106" as being different parts. I think that in itself indicates std is not 106.
In general, as stated before, settings of then do not neccessarily work correct presently due to the changed petrol composition.
Geographic locations may indeed require different settings, sort of similar with pre-setting local air pressure on the altimeter when starting to go for a flight or prior to landing if not local.
Cheers,
Rob
email (option): wd16h@telfort.nl
From the horses mouth = approved, accredited, authenticated, direct, primary source, trustworthy, dependable, etc etc; basically the best source anyone can get.
Pool petrol was way lower octane than anything we have now, so if engines were finicky then one would expect to go leaner. However at something around 5 to 1 compression an engine is said run happily on a 20% paraffin mix [there's a scale chart for this based on compression] that probably equates to pool petrol. Thus any changes needed are more likely to come down to the relative viscosity.
Sorry Jeremy, I still have to learn colloquial language a bit better!
The settings of 1939 were likely not yet based on pool petrol I would think but I do not know when that was introduced.
email (option): wd16h@telfort.nl
In my experience [I got invited over to a National Klompen festival] the Dutch speak far better and more correct English with a wider vocabulary than the vast majority of my townsfolk.
As for pool petrol [74 octane] the only interweb date I've found is 1/1 39, earlier than I thought. I think it persisted until 1952 and yet carb specs didn't subsequently change, although compression ratios went up on subsequent ohv models. Of course all that was petrol, of a sort, not the chemical concoction we have now.
On the website of the Cornwall Austin 7 Club, (http://pub37.bravenet.com/forum/static/post.php?usernum=3155626639&frmid=16&msgid=1469300&cp=0&reply=1469300&mode=add) is a fairly elaborate description and timeline of the events leading up to pool petrol.
It actually started in September 1939 and had an average of 74 Octane as you also mentioned.
email (option): wd16h@telfort.nl
According to the "Flimsy" cans is was 80 during the early part of the war. Ron
email (option): ronpier@talk21.com
The Hansard of November 1950 shows a statement in the UK government as follows:
"Before the war we had three grades of petrol — commercial 68 octane, No. 1 grade 75 octane and top grade 80 octane. I am advised that very few vehicles used 80 octane. Nearly all of them used the other grades."
This was an answer to the question whether the standard could be raised to 80 Octane.
See https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1950/nov/13/pool-petrol-standard
This suggests that 80 was indeed reduced to a lower Octane value due to production output limitations.
Cheers,
Rob
email (option): wd16h@telfort.nl
Given the above I rather doubt pool petrol even reached the heady heights of 74 in the latter part of the war. I would think it was reduced to the lowest that engines would tolerate. It certainly had a pretty poor reputation. There were plenty of profiteers around to water it down, probably with paraffin. Records are just that, not always reality.....
Having run out of any definite information in my files, I have only references to "Standard", I have resorted to Google. I've found a number of forum posts by Phil Beresford who is referred to as "Technical Sales Co-ordinator" At Burlen Fuel Systems.
The earlier link gives more detail. He states that the Standard was 1065, but it is no longer available and is commonly replaced by a 106.
https://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/printthread/Board/2/main/41824/type/thread
In the second link, he again categorically states that the standard for the 276 was 1065.
https://www.britbike.com/forums/ubbthreads.php/ubb/printthread/Board/1/main/76201/type/thread
So it seems that at some point, either under Amal or Grosvenor Works who took over from them..or maybe even Burlen, the 1065 was discontinued and only a 106 supplied, for reasons that we don't know...Did it work better ? Could the change even have taken place in the 1950s prior to the Monobloc appearing?
Whatever, although there is no stock listed on the website, it seems that they are in production again.
It's possible that Nortons were used in the 276 testing and that was why the half size ended up as the unmarked standard. The 16H was at the end of the 1930s the most produced model in Britain. Norton were making little else and, like Hawker with the Hurricane, may have been turning out as many units as they could afford prior to the Ministry actually ordering them. Both Amal and Norton were based in Birmingham.
Pursuant to the above Wiki states that Monoblocs use of idle jets meant they just had one standard jet block, and that that was a significant change from pre monoblocs, simplifying production. So it's very possible that a new [or even just later] carb set up for a 106 would not work as well with a 1065. My carb is however a war era one.